🐱 Trumps executive order to end shitposting on the internet

https://www.dailydot.com/debug/trump-social-media-executive-order/

President Donald Trump is expected to sign an executive order today that would target social media companies, just a day after he complained about Twitter fact-checking two of his tweets.


The executive order would direct the Commerce Department to petition the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to look at Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, according to the Washington Post.

Section 230 essentially acts as a liability shield for websites, as it does not hold them responsible for what is posted on them by third parties.
The section—which has been hailed as “one of the most valuable tools for protecting freedom of expression and innovation on the internet”—has become a target for lawmakers in recent months.

The executive order would also send complaints about alleged bias against conservatives by social media companies to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and would reign in how much federal agencies spend on advertising on social media, the Post reports.
The president promised “big action” on Wednesday as he railed against Twitter’s decision to fact-check his tweets about mail-in ballots and a perceived bias by the companies against conservatives.


On Thursday he signaled that he would be signing the order today.

“This will be a Big Day for Social Media and FAIRNESS!,” the president tweeted.


While Trump’s executive order will add to the unrest between Washington, D.C. and tech companies, it’s unclear how much of an immediate impact it will have.


Karen North, a professor of social media at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School of Communication, told USA Today the order would likely be challenged.



“Presidents can do anything,” North told the news outlet. “But there are checks and balances, and whatever he signs is likely to be challenged by Congress and the courts.”

Meanwhile, Kate Klonick, an assistant law professor at St. John’s University, told the New York Times she did not expect the order to be upheld in court.

“It’s unclear what to make of this because to a certain extent, you can’t just issue an executive order and overturn on a whim 25 years of judicial precedent about how a law is interpreted,” told the newspaper.

According to Protocol, which obtained a draft of Trump’s executive order, it will essentially argue that social media giants are public squares—an argument Trump pushed against in a lawsuit regarding his ability to block users on social media.


The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in 2019 that Trump blocking users was unconstitutional, as he used social media as a forum where makes announcements about his administration.

A more recent court decision may also pour cold water on the overarching goal of the order.

As Politico reported, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected a lawsuit brought by Laura Loomer, the right-wing provocateur, and Freedom Watch, against tech giants for allegedly suppressing conservative viewpoints and violating the First Amendment.


The court ruled unanimously to dismiss the complaint because “in general, the First Amendment ‘prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech.'”

However, the order setting its sights on Section 230 could have implications—and the section has been a target of politicians on both sides of the aisle recently.

Signal, the popular encrypted messaging app, explained the importance of the section while arguing against the EARN IT Act, a hotly contested bill in Congress that critics fear could pave the way for a back-door into encryption.


The bill would dangle the Section 230 immunity over websites unless they adhere to best practices put together by a commission that theoretically (or likely) could include back doors into encryption.

Without Section 230, Signal and other smaller companies would not be able to “shoulder the enormous financial burden of handling hundreds of new lawsuits if they suddenly became responsible for the random things their users say.”

Meanwhile, Trump’s order reportedly taking aim at the section is already getting criticized by digital rights groups.

“Trump could not be more wrong on the law, the facts, and the scope of his power. Neither independent agencies like the FCC nor other executive-branch agencies like the Department of Commerce have any role to play in implementing, adjudicating, or deciding any matter regarding Section 230,” Free Press Senior Policy Counsel Gaurav Laroia said in a statement. “Section 230 was written to protect free speech on the open internet. Changing Section 230 is Congress’ prerogative, not the president’s by fiat. His poorly written executive order is an embarrassment and would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous.”

 

[Fareal]

Trump didn't make that argument. Twitter and activists made that argument, when they forbade him from blocking.

This is nothing more than a logical extension of what they lobbied for in the first place.

A weak argument is a weak argument, no matter if someone else has made it before you.

To ensure we could post whatever we want here, Null bought a fucking server and absorbs those costs. It costs him money to provide this platform. If you want a janny-free platform, pay for one. This is a capitalist society. Nothing comes without a cost.

 

[Strange Looking Dog]

That's what I thought he would do. It'll probably have consequences but honestly fuck twitter fuck facebook and fuck tranny jannies they get what they deserve

Hah hah just make your own internet if you don't like being censored

Fuck right off you disingenuous faggots. You are purposefully setting the bar too high to summit because actually, you do want this censorship even if you can't come out and say it. You're terrified of your tiny little neoliberal worldview being outgrown and so you justify these monopolies with "it's a free market sweaty". You know damn well it's not a free market but you're fine with pretending whenever it'll protect your establishment.
Yeah, the proper long term solution is to outmode these giants with smaller platforms that can compete freely. Brilliant observation, but adoption is years off and these faggots are plainly intent on interfering with the election that's coming in 5 months.

Just don't do anything bro, just stare at the clouds and let yourself get sabotaged bro

 

[Hippopatumus]

Look, I understand why people cling to the "public square" argument, but it's fundamentally a terrible argument, and the clue as to why is right there in the catchphrase.

The servers of Twitter, Facebook et al are not, and never have been, public property. The public has never had an inherent right of use in them. They have only ever been private property in the hands of a corporate body.

The public square is called the public square because by law and custom it belongs to the public. It is public space by its very nature. It is not owned and operated for profit by any private individual. If it was, it would lose its public character.

Twitter and Facebook cannot gain the public character or become the public square merely because the public like to hang about and chat shit there. The public right now are performing the equivalent of using the town's richest dude's poolside as the public square. Then the public get pissed off because the rich dude says "Hey, this is my house, fuck off with your discussion, I don't want to hear that sort of talk in my house". The public squeal and ree that they are being censored and their First Amendment rights are taking a harder dicking than Piper Perri. It is not so. The rich guy's right to quiet enjoyment of his private property holds fast over any vaporous claim of right that 'the public like to talk politics there, so, uh, this magically makes it the town square, I mean if I didn't hang out at the pool party I would just be yelling at an empty street!"

That's not the rich dude's problem. That, my public square dwelling friends, is 100% your fucking problem. You need to find somewhere else to hang out, and convince your friends to go there. You cannot effectively demand the government seize the private property of corporations - and suspend their right to direct their own operations for profit - because you all really like using their stuff, and your friends all use it so that's handy. You are calling for a profit making enterprise to be taken into state control because you are unwilling to create an alternative place to meet.

That is not in accordance with the aims of the American Constitution and it is both a massive infringement on the liberty of persons to conduct profit making business in accordance with the established law of the land, and in addition a terrifying deterrent to anyone considering entering this field of commerce in the future.

There is a compelling public interest. The same interest that means we don't let AT&T disconnect the phone lines of political dissidents.

 

[Screw Danlon]

Look, I understand why people cling to the "public square" argument, but it's fundamentally a terrible argument, and the clue as to why is right there in the catchphrase.

The servers of Twitter, Facebook et al are not, and never have been, public property. The public has never had an inherent right of use in them. They have only ever been private property in the hands of a corporate body.

The public square is called the public square because by law and custom it belongs to the public. It is public space by its very nature. It is not owned and operated for profit by any private individual. If it was, it would lose its public character.

Twitter and Facebook cannot gain the public character or become the public square merely because the public like to hang about and chat shit there. The public right now are performing the equivalent of using the town's richest dude's poolside as the public square. Then the public get pissed off because the rich dude says "Hey, this is my house, fuck off with your discussion, I don't want to hear that sort of talk in my house". The public squeal and ree that they are being censored and their First Amendment rights are taking a harder dicking than Piper Perri. It is not so. The rich guy's right to quiet enjoyment of his private property holds fast over any vaporous claim of right that 'the public like to talk politics there, so, uh, this magically makes it the town square, I mean if I didn't hang out at the pool party I would just be yelling at an empty street!"

That's not the rich dude's problem. That, my public square dwelling friends, is 100% your fucking problem. You need to find somewhere else to hang out, and convince your friends to go there. You cannot effectively demand the government seize the private property of corporations - and suspend their right to direct their own operations for profit - because you all really like using their stuff, and your friends all use it so that's handy. You are calling for a profit making enterprise to be taken into state control because you are unwilling to create an alternative place to meet.

That is not in accordance with the aims of the American Constitution and it is both a massive infringement on the liberty of persons to conduct profit making business in accordance with the established law of the land, and in addition a terrifying deterrent to anyone considering entering this field of commerce in the future.

Except the courts already ruled that Twitter is a public forum. Or “square” if you prefer.

The court ruled that the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account is "a presidential account as opposed to a personal account", and blocking people from it violates their rights to participate in a "designated public forum".[16]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_First_Amendment_Institute_v._Trump#Later_developments

And while I hate the 4D chess meme, I do suspect that this was the long-term plan of letting that whole thing play out.

 

[crocodilian]

Why censor opposition? Even if it's untrue, it's far better to have KKK ideology out in the front and open, because it exposes how tiny and stupid it is. I think the journos have a vested interest in deleting and submerging the autistic, super spergian racists because it makes it harder to evaluate the effect and size of their movement. The KKK had only a few thousand members for a long time, now they're this mysterious phantom organization with tendrils in ever home, and all levels of government. It's dumb, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Hiding shit like NWO and tiny hat collusion theories only lends credence to the idea there's something to it. compare that to the dumb flat earth types who are largely allowed as laughing stocks.

I agree with your point fundamentally. However, you have to understand that the reason groups like Facebook and Twitter won't allow white supremacists a voice because they tend to cite statistics and studies when making their argument. When you have data shoved in your face, there's really no denying that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime, minorities always vote Democrat, the left loves trampling on your rights and that most massive establishments (especially the media) are absurdly corrupt, as well as largely Jewish. Those are just a few examples that an internet nazi can back up when pressed, and social media loves pressing them. Even their memes reference these studies.

Regardless of how you personally feel about anything I just said, ask yourself this: would the average Twitter user be able to refute any of that data? Would they go find research of their own to back up their arguments, or would they resort to the usual leftist strategies?

Tech giants and social media platforms understand their ideological peers contain a lot of idiots, but they abhor the realities internet nazis preach. That's why these companies take matters into their own hands. They obfuscate truth and break the rules for an agenda, but in the end it doesn't matter to them because "the ends justify the means." They can't prove it, mind you, but that's how they feel, so it must be true.

 

[WinchesterPremium]

Why should one be legal while the other is not? Tax evasion is what Joe Blow from Nebrahoma can do, tax avoidance is only possible for corporations, that's the only difference.

Edit: The first sentence transformed mid-point so I had to clean it up.

Tax avoidance is paying someone who knows what they're doing to explicitly make you pay the lowest amount of taxes you can get away with legally. Its explicitly legal. How would you enforce banning it? "Hey, your taxes are filed too well we've arbitrarily decided that you need to pay more" isn't really a solution.

 

[NIGGER ASS PEE POOPY RAPE]

If you want a janny-free platform, pay for one.

there are already small janny-free platforms. I want Orange Hitler to crush the safespaces of youtube, facebook, twitter, reddit, tumblr, deviantart etc. even if it only lasted for a month before joe biden is elected in november, for the instant lifetime supply of salt and the millions of soy/tranny/wahmen/autist suicides it would cause. it would be by far the funniest thing that has ever happened.

 

[X Prime]

I am uncertain how to feel about this. The ultimate source of this issue is that Twitter just cannot control itself and just had to get involved in politics by marking particular posts. The simple reality is that Twitter has state-level power to mold public discourse. This should carry great responsibility, and if they can't wield it neutrally, then they need oversight.

The problem is the oversight mechanisms are obviously also ripe for abuse.

It sounds to me like the real way to solve this would be anti-trust.

 

[polyester]

Can someone recommend a sober analysis of the (leaked draft of the) executive order?
Ideally by someone who is (a) a lawyer, and (b) not TDS-afflicted.

Some Internet Lawyers™ are running around panicking that Trump's changes will completely nullify Section 230 and expose all websites (from social media giants to humble New Zealand bird farming sites) to litigation, and thus usher in the end of social media and comment sections and forums.
Other Internet Lawyers™ are sure that Trump's changes are just symbolic and won't have any practical effect.
I'd like to read an honest take by someone who actually knows what they're talking about.

 

[Marvin]

What section 230 does is it gives you a right to establish a place where you and your friends can discuss restricted topics without you being personally responsible for what your friends say.

Curation is a right here. It's a first amendment right, in fact. It's the right of the people to peaceably assemble. If you rent out a clubhouse for your political group to hang out, you are not personally liable for someone in the group saying something illegal. They are.

But you also have the right to restrict that clubhouse to only the members of that political group.

It is fully legal (and in fact a constitutionally protected right) to establish an explicitly conservative/communist/libertarian/fat-pride oriented social network, and then police it to restrict it to exclusively those topics, while not being personally liable for what those people say. They are individuals, but you have a right to organize as a group.

That's what section 230 does.

And it's also essential to kiwifarms. People who argue that "well, if they just restrict evenly it's OK, like null does". No, null isn't restricting evenly. He's explicitly curating a site for a particular topic: lolcows. That's restricted speech. He deletes threads that aren't about lolcows. Legally (and I'd argue correctly) that's just as much a biased judgement call as banning conservatives or liberals or whatever. It's a judgement call.

Facebook has that right just as much as null does or anyone else.

The solution is to build your own facebook. Which is much more feasible than people realize (see: medium.com's employee count vs alexa rank). The limiting factor is financial; proposed reform: instead of imposing first amendment restrictions on "big social media sites" (how do you define it? what if KF ticks over some arbitrary page view count and is suddenly subject to lawsuits?), which is retarded, just make it so any bank that offers FDIC (a federal corporation) insured accounts must enforce their rules and any business perks they offer on a first amendment neutral basis.

 

[XYZpdq]

Except the courts already ruled that Twitter is a public forum. Or “square” if you prefer.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_First_Amendment_Institute_v._Trump#Later_developments

And while I hate the 4D chess meme, I do suspect that this was the long-term plan of letting that whole thing play out.

my major concern with believing in God Emperor's 7d Backgammon skills is the really horrifying part that apparently everybody else is so fuck awful at it

 

[Nobunaga]

Why should one be legal while the other is not? Tax evasion is what Joe Blow from Nebrahoma can do, tax avoidance is only possible for corporations, that's the only difference.

Edit: The first sentence transformed mid-point so I had to clean it up.

Tax avoidance can be done by the average citizen though, its just that its not worth it 99% of the time, unless you make thousands per hour

 

[Boris Blank's glass eye]

Tax avoidance is paying someone who knows what they're doing to explicitly make you pay the lowest amount of taxes you can get away with legally. Its explicitly legal. How would you enforce banning it? "Hey, your taxes are filed too well we've arbitrarily decided that you need to pay more" isn't really a solution.

Closing intentionally left-in loopholes would be a good start IMO. You know, like the successors of the original Double Irish arrangement.

The solution is to build your own facebook.

That's been debunked by real life multiple times.
Edit:

Tax avoidance can be done by the average citizen though, its just that its not worth it 99% of the time, unless you make thousands per hour

Alright, I'll settle for "that's only viable for corporations".
People making thousands per hour are not average by any definition.

 

[AnotherPleb]

I am uncertain how to feel about this. The ultimate source of this issue is that Twitter just cannot control itself and just had to get involved in politics by marking particular posts. The simple reality is that Twitter has state-level power to mold public discourse. This should carry great responsibility, and if they can't wield it neutrally, then they need oversight.

The problem is the oversight mechanisms are obviously also ripe for abuse.

It sounds to me like the real way to solve this would be anti-trust.

Why use Antitrust when politicians can make some do-nothing laws that they can make money off of?

 

[語呂合わせ]

if enforcement of them is somehow impossible, improve them.

What if the reason that enforcement is impossible is because none of the people ever elected want to enforce them?

 

[Marvin]

Except the courts already ruled that Twitter is a public forum. Or “square” if you prefer.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_First_Amendment_Institute_v._Trump#Later_developments

And while I hate the 4D chess meme, I do suspect that this was the long-term plan of letting that whole thing play out.

That's not what that case ruled. It ruled that a government operated twitter account (or someone operating in their official capacity as a government employee) can't arbitrarily block people from interacting with them. Twitter itself can still do it.

It'd be akin to a government official hosting a press conference in Wendy's. Wendy's can kick people out for whatever they want. The government official can't.

If the government official is using Wendy's as a proxy to censor specific people, a judge would rule that the official simply can't hold official press releases at Wendy's anymore.

That's been debunked by real life multiple times.

It certainly hasn't been debunked, don't be ridiculous.

Compare Facebook's employee count and alexa rank to medium.com's employee count and alexa rank. Competition is definitely possible.

It's difficult for financial reasons, but even now people are managing to stay afloat. Financial regulations would be preferable to enabling regulatory capture for Facebook and Twitter and killing competition permanentely.

I don't want the government to anoint boomerbook as a "standard public square". I want to enable competition.

 

[crocodilian]

The solution is to build your own facebook.

... And then be immediately shut down, or otherwise bullied out of the "free" market, by those mentioned groups. Groups who predate you, ideologically oppose you and will happily use their vast amounts of money to crush you. This argument is made to death. It's never any more right.

Furthermore, your argument doesn't hold water when sites like 8chan are very readily held accountable (or at least sued; again, very expensive, see above) for mass shooter manifestos posted on their imageboards. The federal government and various, well-financed groups will absolutely try to hold sites accountable for things they dislike, and it's extremely easy for them to sue frivolously until their opposition doesn't have any money left to fight with (and thus can't afford to exist anymore.) Enough already.

 

[Marvin]

... And then be immediately shut down, or otherwise bullied out of the "free" market, by those mentioned groups. Groups who predate you, ideologically oppose you and will happily use their vast amounts of money to crush you. This argument is made to death. It's never any more right.

Which groups? Examples? I'd say the opposite about the argument being made to death, I don't think it's been properly refuted.

Furthermore, your argument doesn't hold water when sites like 8chan are very readily held accountable (or at least sued; again, very expensive, see above) for mass shooter manifestos posted on their imageboards. The federal government and various, well-financed groups will absolutely try to hold sites accountable for things they dislike, and it's extremely easy for them to sue frivolously until their opposition doesn't have any money left to fight with (and thus can't afford to exist anymore.) Enough already.

Example?

 

[Screw Danlon]

That's not what that case ruled. It ruled that a government operated twitter account (or someone operating in their official capacity as a government employee) can't arbitrarily block people from interacting with them. Twitter itself can still do it.

It'd be akin to a government official hosting a press conference in Wendy's. Wendy's can kick people out for whatever they want. The government official can't.

If the government official is using Wendy's as a proxy to censor specific people, a judge would rule that the official simply can't hold official press releases at Wendy's anymore..

Except that banning people from Twitter would then exclude them from interacting with the government official in a significant way.

Banning someone from a single Wendy’s is nowhere near comparable to banning them from something like Twitter. It would be more akin to being cut off from phones or email.

 

[X Prime]

You cannot enable true competition to Twitter or Facebook simply because they're all ideological compatriots, and they will not bear any actual competition.

You can piss and moan and cry all you want that competition should be enabled, and it should be, but the naked reality of the situation is that Big Tech is highly collusive.